SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.22 número2Prevalencia de sobrepeso y obesidad en un complejo penitenciario mexicanoApoyo social percibido, resiliencia y consumo de sustancias psicoactivas en internas en establecimientos penitenciarios índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista Española de Sanidad Penitenciaria

versión On-line ISSN 2013-6463versión impresa ISSN 1575-0620

Rev. esp. sanid. penit. vol.22 no.2 Barcelona may./ago. 2020  Epub 05-Oct-2020

https://dx.doi.org/10.18176/resp.00012 

Original Articles

Cost-effectiveness analysis of chronic hepatitis C treatment in the prison population in Spain

Análisis coste-efectividad del tratamiento de la hepatitis C crónica en población reclusa en España

A Marco1  , R Domínguez-Hernández2  , MA Casado2 

1Prison Health Program. Institut Català de La Salut. Barcelona. Spain.

2Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB). Madrid. Spain.

ABSTRACT

Objectives:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral (DAAs) treatment versus non-treatment in prisoners awaiting treatment for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and to analyse the clinical and economic impact of the treatment on liver complications and mortality.

Material and method:

A lifetime Markov model was developed to simulate treatment and disease progression from an estimated cohort of 4,408 CHC prisoners treated with DAAs over 2 years (50% of patient each year) versus no treatment. In the treated cohort, a sustained viral response of 95% was associated. Patient characteristics, transition probabilities, utilities and costs (pharmacological and healthcare states) were obtained from published literature. The model estimated healthcare costs and benefits, incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) based on total costs and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and avoided clinical events. A National Healthcare System perspective was adopted with a 3% annual discount rate for both costs and health outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty.

Results:

In the DDA treated cohort, the model estimated a decrease of 92% of decompensated cirrhosis and 83% of hepatocellular carcinoma, 88% liver-related mortality cases were reduced, 132 liver transplants were avoided. The treatment achieved an additional 5.0/QALYs (21.2 vs. 16.2) with an incremental cost of €3,473 (€24,088 vs. €20,615) per patient with an ICUR of €690 per QALY gained.

Discussion:

Considering the willingness-to-pay threshold used in Spain (€22,000-30,000/QALY), DAAs treatment for prisoners with CHC is a highly cost-effective strategy, reduces infection transmission, increases survival and reduces complications due to liver disease, as well as the cost associated with its management.

Keywords: Prisons; Chronic hepatitis C; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Public health

RESUMEN

Objetivos:

Evaluar, en presos con hepatitis C crónica (HCc) pendientes de tratamiento, el coste-efectividad de tratarlos con antivirales de acción directa (AAD) frente a no tratarlos, y analizar el impacto clínico y económico del tratamiento sobre las complicaciones hepáticas y la mortalidad.

Material y método:

Se desarrolló un modelo de Markov para simular el tratamiento y proyectar la progresión de la enfermedad de una cohorte estimada de 4.408 reclusos con HCc tratados con AAD en dos años (el 50% cada año) frente a ningún tratamiento. En los tratados, se asoció una respuesta viral sostenida del 95%. Las características de los pacientes, las probabilidades de transición, las utilidades y los costes (farmacológicos y estados de salud) se obtuvieron de publicaciones científicas. El modelo estimó costes y resultados en salud, la relación coste-utilidad incremental (RCUI), a partir de los costes totales y años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC) y los eventos clínicos evitados. La perspectiva fue la del Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS) y se aplicó una tasa de descuento anual (el 3%) para costes y resultados en salud. La robustez de los resultados se evaluó mediante un análisis de sensibilidad.

Resultados:

En la población tratada, el modelo estimó una reducción del 92% de los casos de cirrosis descompensada y del 83% de carcinoma hepatocelular, se evitaron 132 trasplantes hepáticos y disminuyó el 88% la mortalidad hepática. El tratamiento consiguió 5,0/AVAC adicionales (21,2 frente al 16,2), con un coste incremental de 3.473 euros (24.088 € frente a 20.615 €) por paciente y una RCUI de 690 €/AVAC ganado.

Discusión:

Considerando el umbral de disponibilidad a pagar utilizado en España (22.000-30.000 €/AVAC), el tratamiento con AAD en los presos con HCc es una estrategia altamente coste-efectiva, reduce la transmisión, aumenta la supervivencia y reduce las complicaciones hepáticas, así como los costes asociado a su manejo.

Palabras clave: Prisiones; Hepatitis C crónica; Análisis coste-efectividad; Salud pública

INTRODUCTION

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Strategic Plan for tackling Hepatitis C in the Spanish National Health System (Plan Estratégico para el Abordaje de la Hepatitis C en España, PEAHC) consider the hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected prison inmates as a risk population that must be prioritized in order to eliminate hepatitis C1-2. This is because prisoners have a much higher prevalence of HCV infection compared to the non-incarcerated population and because successful treatment implies reducing both the risk of transmission and the burden of the disease. In particular, in Spain it is estimated that HCV infection is 8-14 times more prevalent in prisoners than in non-prisoners (8.2%-14.8% vs. 0.8%1.2%)3-7, despite the fact that the incidence in prisons has been greatly reduced in recent years8-9.

The high prevalence of HCV infection in the prison population is mainly due to the frequent history of intravenous drug use present in this group. In addition to the habit of sharing injection materials, there are other possible transmission routes among inmates, such as unhygienic tattooing and piercing, as well as risky sexual behaviours10-11. It is estimated that 70% of intravenous drug users (IDUs) enter prison at least once and that 35.3% of Spanish IDU prisoners and 16.5% of foreign IDU prisoners admit to using an intravenous drug during their stays in prison12. This consumption is maintained and even tends to increase during leave times and after release13, which implies a risk of HCV transmission both inside and outside prison14.

The availability in recent years of new direct action antivirals (DAAs), with a high efficacy, a favourable safety profile and a shorter administration period, has led to extraordinary changes in the morbidity and mortality associated with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) as well as in the quality of life of patients.

Several recent studies have shown that treating prisoners in Spanish prisons with CHC using current DAAs can be successful15-16 and have a similar effectiveness to that observed in the non-incarcerated population15. Therefore, optimizing CHC treatment in prison inmates is an opportunity to improve the health of these patients and has a great epidemiological importance given the ability of this group to transmit the infection.

On the other hand, CHC has an impact at an individual and collective level, and in prisoners and non-prisoners alike, representing a substantial economic burden for the Spanish National Health System (NHS)17. Thus, although the treatment of chronic patients is associated with the cost of DAAs, it should not be forgotten that not treating them also involves costs for the NHS deriving from disease management as well as its complications. In recent years, new DAAs have induced a change in the use of health resources and in the costs of care for these patients17.

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness and health gains associated with the use of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of CHC in the prison population in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A cost-effectiveness analysis of CHC patients awaiting treatment who are inmates in Spanish prisons was conducted. The target population was estimated at 4,408 inmates. For the calculation of this population, the total annual prison population was used, not including readmissions obtained from two Prison Administrations (4,001-4,713 inmates)2-3, and seroprevalence of Ac HCV and positive viral load in this population of 45-53%2-3 and 9.1% was associated, respectively.

The characteristics of the population (age, genotype and degree of fibrosis [F0, F1, F2, F3 y F4]) were identified from published studies of prisoners in Spain (Table 1)18. For the analysis, a previously validated Markov19-20 model was adapted (Figure 1) to simulate the progression of the disease through the different mutually exclusive health states at the end of each annual cycle or remaining in the same health state. Patients enter the model based on the state of their fibrosis. In the treated cohort, it was considered that 50% were treated in the first year and 50% in the second year, and the average rate of sustained viral response (SVR) was 95%2 which was derived from Spanish real-world data. Patients in SVR stages F0, F1 and F2 are considered cured patients and continue in that state until their death. Patients in SVR stages F3 and F4 remain at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and, in the case of SVR F4, are also at risk of decompensated cirrhosis (DC). Untreated patients progressed in the model according to the natural history of the disease. Patients who undergo liver transplantation (LT) only remain for one cycle at state. The transition probabilities between the different health states were obtained from published literature 19-20.

Table 1. Analysis parameters. 

Parameter Value Reference
Distribution (%) of genotypes (GT)
· GT1 49 PEAHC 2
· GT2 1
· GT3 24
· GT4 26
Level (%) of fibrosis (F)
· F0 and F1 44 Daivozadeh G et al. 18
· F2 19
· F3 16
· F4 20
Probabilities of transition (yearly)
· From F0 to F1 0.131 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From F1 to F2 0.080 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From F2 to F3 0.133 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From F3 to F4 0.134 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From F3 to HCC 0.011 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From SVR F3 to HCC 0.003 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From F4 to DC 0.040 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From F4 to HCC 0.015 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From SVR F4 to DC 0.003 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From SVR F4 to HCC 0.006 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From SVR F4 to Regr. C 0.055 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From DC to HCC 0.068 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From DC to LT 0.023 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From DC to liver-related death 0.138 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From HCC to LT 0.040 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From HCC to liver-related death 0.430 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From TH to post-LT 1.000 Assumption
· From LT to liver-related death 0.210 Turnes J et al.19-20
· From post-LT liver-related death 0.057 Turnes J et al.19-20
Utilities
· F0 0.98 Turnes J et al.19-20
· F1 0.98 Turnes J et al.19-20
· F2 0.92 Turnes J et al.19-20
· F3 0.79 Turnes J et al.19-20
· F4 0.76 Turnes J et al.19-20
· SVR F0 1.00 Turnes J et al.19-20
· SVR F1 1.00 Turnes J et al.19-20
· SVR F2 0.93 Turnes J et al.19-20
· SVR F3 0.83 Turnes J et al.19-20
· SVR F4 0.83 Turnes J et al.19-20
· Reg. C 0.86 Turnes J et al.19-20
· DC 0.69 Turnes J et al.19-20
· HCC 0.67 Turnes J et al.19-20
· LT 0.50 Turnes J et al.19-20
· Post-LT 0.77 Turnes J et al.19-20
Costs of health status
· F0 272.10 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F1 272.10 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F2 314.82 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F3 314.82 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F4 572.76 € Turnes J et al.19-20
Costs of health statuse
· SVR F0 115.71 Turnes J et al.19-20
· SVR F0 (second year onwards) 0 Assumption
· SVR F1 115.71 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F1 SVR (second year onwards) 0 Assumption
· F2 SVR 115.71 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F2 SVR (second year onwards) 0 € Assumption
· F3 SVR 115.71 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F3 SVR (second year onwards) 115.71 € Assumption
· F4 SVR 166.46 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· F4 SVR (second year onwards) 166 € Assumption
· Regr C 116 € Assumption
· Regr C (second year onwards) 0 € Assumption
· Decompensated cirrhosis 2332.38 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· Liver cell carcinoma 8884.02 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· Liver transplant 125294.15 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· Post-LT 36622.95 € Turnes J et al.19-20
· Post-LT (following years) 18331 € Turnes J et al.19-20

Note. DC: decompensated cirrhosis; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; PEAHC: Spanish Strategic Plan for Combating Hepatitis C; Post-LT: postliver transplant; Reg. C: regression of cirrhosis; SVR: sustained virologic response; LT: liver transplant.

Figure 1. Markov model diagram 

Mortality associated with the analysis depended on each health state and, in some cases, on the age range. In patients with DC, HCC or LT, liver-relate mortality19-20 were assigned for each state, and nonliver-relate mortality was calculated from data from the National Institute of Statistics21. In the rest of the stages, all-cause mortality was considered according to the age range21.

The utility values are associated with the preferences of the patients for a given health state, oscillating between 0 (worst perceived state) and 1 (perfect health state). The values were obtained from published studies when utilities for the general population were used19-20 (Table 1).

The study was conducted from the perspective of the NHS. Therefore, only direct health costs expressed in euros and with values based on those from the year 2018 were incorporated. The average pharmacological cost of DAAs per patient (€ 20,594) was calculated from the total number of patients treated since the PEAHC started and the total costs for the same period2,22. The costs associated with monitoring during treatment and disease management19-20, as well as the costs of each health state19-20, were updated with respect to the year of the study (€, 2018) using the Price Index of Consumption (PIC)23.

The results for effectiveness were expressed in terms of life years gained (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The latter was estimated as the product of the LY due to the utility of the patients in each health state. The efficiency was expressed as follows:

  • as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient, which was calculated as follows:

    ICER=Cost Treatment-Cost No treatmentLY Treatment-LY No treatment

  • as an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) per patient, by dividing the incremental difference of the total cost and the QALY of the two alternatives:

    ICUR=Cost Treatment-Cost No treatmentQALY Treatment-QALY No treatment

The option of treating all prisoners with CHC was considered efficient if the result of the ICUR was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold used in Spain, which ranges between € 21,000 and € 30,000 per QALY24-25.

The incidence of liver complications in each of the alternatives studied was also analysed; this was shown as the “number of cases avoided” with the option of treatment versus no treatment.

The time horizon was defined as the entire life of patients. For this reason and to assess the results in a present value, an annual discount rate of 3% was used for both costs and health outcomes26.

Finally, to evaluate the model's uncertainty and the robustness of the results, several univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed by modifying the most significant parameters. These parameters were: a) the SVR rate (93% and 98%)2; b) the percentage of patients at F4 stage (15% and 25%); c) the probability of receiving LT for presenting with DC (0.01 and 0.06)19-20 or HCC (0.0 and 0.14)19-20; d) the utilities of the SVR stages (0.98 and 1.00 for SVR F0 and SVR F1, 0.92 and 1.00 for SVR F2, 0.82 and 0.90 for SVR F3, and 0.79 and 0.87 for SVR F4)19-20; and e) the pharmacological cost (± 20%), the cost of LT (± 20%) and f) the variation of the discount rate (0% and 5%)26.

RESULTS

The treatment of the entire cohort of patients was associated with 3.8 LY and 5.0 QALY per patient compared to no treatment and with an incremental cost for treatment of €3,473, which implies an ICUR of 690 € per QALY gained and an ICER of € 913 per LY per patient, which is well below the WTP threshold commonly used in Spain (Table 2).

Table 2. Results of cost effectiveness analysis per patient. 

Treated Cohort Not treated cohort Incremental difference Treatment vs. not treatment
LYG 22.9 19.1 3.8
QALY 21.2 16.2 5.0
Total costs 24.088 € 20.615 € 3.473 €
Pharmacological 20.294 € 0 € 20.294 €
Treatment monitoring 1.028 € 0 € 1.028 €
Disease management 2.766 € 20.615 € -17.848 €
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 913 €
Incremental cost-utility ratio 690 €

Note. QALY: quality adjusted life years; LYG: life year gained.

The health outcomes measured in terms of the number of avoided cases of DC, HCC, LT and liver-related deaths (Figure 2) showed much greater reductions with the option of treating versus not treating (92, 83, 90 and 88%, respectively). These reductions also implied a decrease in the costs associated with the management of these complications.

Figure 2. Clinical results of the analysis for the entire cohort according to treatment hypothesis. 

The sensitivity analyses showed that the results described above were robust. The maximum variation occurred when the probability of receiving LT due to DC or HCC increased and when the pharmacological cost was reduced by 20%, revealing a negative ICUR, this means that treating the entire cohort, compared to the non-treatment option, is a dominant strategy (lower cost and higher effectiveness). The variation in the discount rate also had a significant impact on the results. The highest ICUR was € 1,497/QALY (below the WTP threshold), while the lowest was € -507/ QALY. The detailed results are presented in a tornado diagram showing the variation in the ICUR when each parameter included in the sensitivity analysis varies between its maximum and minimum values (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis results: Tornado Diagram. 

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, only one recent study27 has assessed the efficiency of increasing the number of DAAs treatments used for prisoners in Spain. In that study a different methodology was used to evaluate the long-term effects of the disease and costs, however it had similar results to this one. In this sense, the results of our analysis also show that treating CHC infected prisoners is an efficient strategy, with a cost per QALY that is significantly lower than the efficiency threshold used in Spain. In addition, treating all CHC prisoners reduces infection transmission, increases survival, improves quality of life, significantly reduces the incidence of liver complications and avoids future economic costs. In our opinion, these results are relevant and consistent in the sensitivity analyses carried out.

Studies published in other countries that evaluate the economic impact of treatment for CHC in the prison population are scarce14,28-29. However, the results of these studies are in line with those obtained in this study, even if evaluations were performed when the standard treatment was pegylated interferon plus ribavirin27 or if more recent treatments were used, having taken place during the DAA treatment era14,29.

In this analysis, a scenario was assessed in which the option of treating prisoners with CHC would be carried out quickly (i.e., 100% within 2 years). The time factor is a significant element because of the epidemiological relevance to reduce the possibility of viral transmission between subjects. In addition, it is also important from an economic perspective as there is a decrease in the costs associated with the management and liver-related complications of the disease when treatment is initiated and successful30.

The analysis also examined the treatment of all affected inmates regardless of their degree of fibrosis, which is what the PEAHC has recommended since June 20172 for epidemiological, therapeutic and cost-effectiveness reasons30.

Treatment with current DAAs for CHC has demonstrated that they generate benefits at epidemiological, clinical and economic levels19-20. Therefore, the main strategy for eliminating HCV infection recommended by prison experts in a recent publication31. However, access to this treatment is access to this is restricted in many countries32 and even more so to even more in prisoners33, essentially for economic reasons34-35. As we have observed in the inmate and non-incarcerated populations17, the cost of treatment is amply compensated by individual benefits (improved quality of life, increased survival and fewer liver complications), collective benefits (reduction in transmission) and the savings in long-term health expenditure. It is possible that these benefits are even greater among prisoners since the age of inmates in treatment is much lower: in one Spanish study, they were 15 years younger, and there were no cases treated in those older than 63 years15. Additionally, treatment of younger and more affected patients obtained greater clinical benefits35. It has even been recommended that the treatment of patients with these characteristics take priority in cases of budgetary difficulties36.

In Spanish prisons, there are improvements to be made in access to treatment. A recent parliamentary response4 reported that almost 40% of the prison population with CHC and fibrosis stages F2-F4 were still awaiting treatment. The results of our analysis show that treating prisoners is an efficient strategy and should help to change this situation and encourage the treatment of all infected inmates. There are already examples in Spanish prisons16,37, where almost all infected prisoners have been treated, that show that universal treatment is feasible if there is administrative support along with a team of professionals that is involved and motivated. In some regions, such as Catalonia, in which access to treatments for infected prisoners is unrestricted, those infections can be eliminated in a very short period of time9. If we add to all of these practical experiences the results of the economic assessment of this work, there should be no doubt that treating CHC in prisoners is a political priority. Some authors have suggested, in countries such the United States, that the use of specific budgetary items for this purpose should be analysed35.

This study presents some limitations related to its methodology. The first is that specific characteristics of patients co-infected with HIV were not included, and the data that model the influence of this infection were not considered. There are studies that have shown that transition probabilities and utilities are similar in patients with and without co-infection with HIV38, except in the progression of cirrhotic patients, which is more pronounced in co-infected patients39. The second is that the transmission of the disease has not been included in the analysis. The exclusion of both assumptions makes the analysis more conservative and minimizes the benefit of the option to treat, but this does not alter the conclusion since, in any case, the option to treat turned out to be more beneficial.

Another possible limitation of this work is that cases of post-SVR reinfection were not taken into account. In Spain, reinfection has recently been studied in more than 600 prisoners treated with SVR for whom monitoring was possible, and it was found that the estimated reinfection rate for this group was 2.9 per 100 patients/year40. These data are epidemiologically relevant and should support the preferably early re-treatment of these patients. Including re-treatment in the analysis would result in an increase in the pharmacological cost, but also increase the clinical benefits, assuming no significant modification was made to the presented economic analysis.

Finally, if the social perspective had been used instead of that of the Spanish Health System and the loss of productivity in patients with CHC had been considered, the option of treating could be assumed to have greater clinical and economic benefits41. Therefore, one would expect the results of the analysis to further favour the option to treat.

As a relevant aspect and something that, in our opinion, provides strength to this study, is that a previously validated model representing the natural history of the disease and based on real-life patient data that reflects the inmate population with HCV in Spain has been used. We also believe that the results can be extrapolated to other countries in our economic environment with similar infected populations.

In short, political decisions and organizational programming can improve the treatment of CHC prison population, which is essential to overcoming the challenge of eliminating HCV. The treatment of this population improves the health of those affected, decreases health complications, reduces economic costs and is a cost-effective strategy because it involves a cost per QALY that is significantly lower than the efficiency WTP threshold used in Spain. Therefore, to test and treat this population quickly and without restrictions should be the way forward.

References

1. WHO. Guidelines on hepatitis B and C testing. [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/hepatitis/publications/guidelines-hepatitis-c-b-testing/en/Links ]

2. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Secretaría General de Sanidad y Consumo. Strategic plan for tackling Hepatitis C in the Spanish National Health System [Internet]. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Secretaría General de Sanidad y Consumo; 2015. Disponible en: https://www.mscbs.gob.es/ciudadanos/enfLesiones/enfTransmisibles/docs/plan_estrategico_hepatitis_C.pdfLinks ]

3. Generalitat de Catalunya. Descriptors estadístics serveis penitenciaris. [Internet]. Departament de Justícia. Generalitat de Catalunya. [citado 24 Mar 2018]. Disponible en: http://www.gencat.cat/justicia/estadistiques_ser-veis_penitenciaris/1_pob.htmlLinks ]

4. Congreso de los Diputados. Registro General del Congreso de los Diputados. Respuesta del Gobierno. Entrada 51725 de 19 de octubre de 2017. [citado 25 de agosto, 2018]. Disponible en: http://www.congreso.es/l12p/e5/e_0051725_n_000.pdf. [ Links ]

5. Lavin AC, Perelló C, Llerena S, Gómez M, Escudero MD, Rodríguez L, et al. Prevalence of hepatitis C in the Spanish population. The prevhep study (Ethon cohort). J Hepatol. 2017;66:S272. [ Links ]

6. Rodríguez-Tajes S, Collazos C, Frías MC, Vidal-Benede MJ, Jané M, Domínguez A, et al. Study of prevalence of infection by hepatitis B and C virus in Calalonia. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;40:1-2. [ Links ]

7. Aguinaga A, Díaz-González J, Pérez-García A, Barrado L, Martínez-Baz J, Casado I, et al. The Prevalence of Diagnosed and Undiagnosed Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Navarra, Spain, 2014-2016. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2018;36:325-31. [ Links ]

8. Marco A, Gallego C, Caylà JA. Incidence of Hepatitis C infection among prisoners by routine laboratory values during a 20-year period. PLoS One. 2014;9:e90560. [ Links ]

9. Marco A, da Silva A, Guerrero RA, Planella R, Solé C, Turu E, et al. Time series analysis to estimate when hepatitis C infection will no longer be a major public health problem in prisons in Catalonia (Spain). Hepatology. 2017;66:166. [ Links ]

10. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Public health guidance on prevention and control of blood-borne viruses in prison settings: Prevention and control of communicable diseases in prison settings. [Internet]. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Public health guidance on prevention and control of blood-borne viruses in prison settings. Estocolmo: ECDC and EMCDDA Scientific Advice; 2018. Disponible en: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/public-health-guidance-prevention-control-bloodborne-viruses-prison-settingsLinks ]

11. Moazen B, Saeedi Moghaddam S, Silbernaql MA, Lotfizadeh M, Bosworth RJ, Alammehrjerdi Z, et al. Prevalence of drug injection, sexual activity, tattooing, and piercing among prison inmates. Epidemiol Rev. 2018;40:58-69. [ Links ]

12. Folch C, Casabona J, Espelt A, Majó X, Meroño M, Gonzalez V, et al. High prevalence and incidence of HIV and HCV among new injecting drug users with a large proportion of migrants-Is prevention failing? Subst Use Misuse. 2016;51:250-60. [ Links ]

13. Merrall El, Kariminia A, Binswanger IA, Hobbs MS, Farrell M, Marsden J, et al. Meta-analysis of drug-related deaths soon after release from prison. Addiction. 2010;105:1545-54. [ Links ]

14. He T, Li K, Roberts MS, Spaulding AC, Ayer T, Grefenstette JJ, et al. Prevention of hepatitis C by screening and treatment in U.S. Prison. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:84-92. [ Links ]

15. Marco A, Roget M, Cervantes M, Forné M, Planella R, Miquel M, et al. Comparison of effectiveness and discontinuation of interferon-free therapy for hepatitis C in prison inmates and noninmates. J Viral Hepat. 2018;25:1280-86. [ Links ]

16. Cuadrado A, Llarena S, Cobo C, Pallás JR, Mateo M, Cabezas J, et al. Microenvironment eradication of hepatitis C: A novel treatment paradigm. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113:1639-48. [ Links ]

17. Sicras-Mainar A, Navarro-Artieda R, Sáez-Zafra M. Comorbidity, concomitant medication, use of resources and healthcare costs associated with chronic hepatitis C virus carriers in Spain. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;41:234-44. [ Links ]

18. Daivozadeh G, Nieto Pérez MDLA, Campos E, Ramírez JA, Domínguez I, Cumbreño B, et al. Análisis descriptivo de la situación de la hepatitis C en los centros penitenciarios de Puerto I, II y III. En: II Congreso Nacional del Grupo de Estudio de las Hepatitis Víricas (GEHEP) de la SEIMC 2016. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2016;34:1-59. [ Links ]

19. Turnes J, Domínguez-Hernández R, Casado MÁ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of two treatment strategies for chronic hepatitis C before and after access to direct-acting antivirals in Spain. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;40:433-46. [ Links ]

20. Turnes J, Domínguez-Hernández R, Casado MA. Value and innovation of direct-acting antivirals: long-term health outcomes of the strategic plan for the management of hepatitis C in Spain. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2017;109:809-17. [ Links ]

21. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Estadística de defunciones según la causa de muerte 2016. [Internet]. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). [actualizado 19 Dic 2019]. Disponible en: https://www.ine.es. [ Links ]

22. Ministerio de Hacienda. Portal Institucional.[Internet]. [citado 11 Abr 2020]. Disponible en: http://www.hacienda.gob.es. [ Links ]

23. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Cálculo de variaciones del Índice de Precios de Consumo (sistema IPC base 2016). [Internet]. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. [citado 25 Ago 2018]. Disponible en: http://www.ine.es/varipc/Links ]

24. Sacristán JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, Prieto L, Pinto JL. What is an efficient health technology in Spain? Gac Sanit. 2002;16:334-43. [ Links ]

25. Vallejo-Torres L, García-Lorenzo B, Serrano-Aguilar P. Estimating a cost-effectiveness threshold for the Spanish NHS. Health Econ. 2018;27:746-61. [ Links ]

26. López-Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F, García-Altés A, Gisbert R, Mar J, et al. Spanish recommendations on economic evaluation of health technologies. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11:513-20. [ Links ]

27. Chhatwal J, Samur S, Li K, He T, Llerena S, Cobo C, et al. Improved health outcomes from hepatitis C treatment scale-up in Spain's prisons: A costeffectiveness study. J Hepatol. 2018;68:S151. [ Links ]

28. Tan JA, Joseph TA, Saab S. Treating hepatitis C in the prison population is cost-saving. Hepatology. 2008;48:1387-95. [ Links ]

29. Shan Liu, Watcha D, Holodniy M, Goldhaber-Fiebert J. Sofosbuvir-Based treatment regimens for chronic, genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in U.S. incarcerated population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;16:546-53. [ Links ]

30. Buti M, Domínguez-Hernández R, Oyagüez I, Casado MÁ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir, peginterferon and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Early treatment in the initial stage of fibrosis vs. delayed treatment in advanced fibrosis. Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;39:449-57. [ Links ]

31. Stöver H, Meroueh F, Marco A, Keppler K, Saíz de la Hoya P, Littlewood R, et al. Offering HCV treatment to prisoners is an important opportunity: key principles based on policy and practice assessment in Europe. [Internet]. BMC Public Health. 2019. 10.1186/s12889-018-6357-x [ Links ]

32. CDA Foundation. Polaris Observatory-HEP C-MAP. [Internet]. CDA Foundation. [citado 25 Agos 2018]. Disponible en:http://cdafound.org/polaris-hepC-map/Links ]

33. Bielen R, Stumo SR, Halford R, Werling K, Reic T, Stöver H, et al. Harm reduction and viral hepatitis C in European prisons: a crosssectional survey of 25 countries. Harm Reduct J. 2018;15:25. [ Links ]

34. Webster PC. Federal inmates treated for hep C drop 29%. CMAJ. 2015;187:1345-46. [ Links ]

35. Beckman AL, Bilinski A, Boyko R, Camp GM, Wall AT, Lim JK, et al. New hepatitis C drugs are very costly and unavailable to many state prisoners. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35:1893-901. [ Links ]

36. Cipriano LE, Liu S, Shahzada KS, Holodniy M, Godhaber-Fiebert JD. Economically efficient hepatitis C virus treatment prioritzation improves health outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2018;38:849-65. [ Links ]

37. Jiménez-Galán G, Jiménez C, Alía C, García R, Huerta C, de Diego S, et al. Disminución, casi eliminación, de la Carga Viral del VHC en la población de un centro penitenciario desde la aplicación del Plan Estratégico para el Abordaje de la Hepatitis C crónica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud (PEAH). Rev Esp Sanid Penit. 2018;20:71. [ Links ]

38. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Sulkowski M, Naggie S, Puoti M, Orkin C, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for treatment of chronic hepatitis C in patients coinfected with hepatitis C virus and HIV: The impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes. J Infect Dis. 2015;212:367-77. [ Links ]

39. Saab S, Gordon SC, Park H, Sulkowski M, Ahmed A, Younossi Z. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir plus peginterferon/ribavirin in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40:657-75. [ Links ]

40. Marco A, Guerrero RA, Vergara M, Gallego C, Solé C, Planella R, et al. Reinfection in a large cohort of prison inmates with sustained virological response after treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Catalonia (Spain), 2002-2016. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;72:189-94. [ Links ]

41. Oliva-Moreno J, Peña-Longobardo LM, Alonso S, Fernández-Bolaños A, Gutiérrez ML, Hidalgo-Vega Á, et al. Labour productivity losses caused by premature death associated with hepatitis C in Spain. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;27:631-37. [ Links ]

Received: October 01, 2019; Accepted: October 28, 2019

Correspondence: Andrés Marco. Enfermedades Infecciosas, Programa de Salud Penitenciaria. Gran Vía de les Corts Catalanes, 587-589, 08007, Barcelona. E-mail: amarco@gencat.cat; andres.marco.m@gmail.com

Conflict of interest

Andrés Marco has made oral presentations for Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag and MSD, and has also participated has also participated in advisory boards of Gilead, Janssen-Cilag and MSD.

Raquel Domínguez-Hernández and Miguel Ángel Casado are employees of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia, a consultancy firm specialised in the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions, which has received unconditional funding from Gilead Sciences for the development of the analysis.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License